If global greenhouse gas emissions aren’t curbed in the very immediate future, we could be looking at an 18 percent decrease in food production by 2050, finds a new study.

If steps are taken now to update infrastructure and irrigation systems, while also moving food production into different regions, the decrease could be averted, the study researchers explained.

Stress on our water systems is expected to be one of the biggest obstacles in farming in the not-so-distant future, particularly if climate change isn’t addressed. Water “may become dramatically scarcer much earlier than previously thought”, Michael Obersteiner, one of the study co-authors, said in a statement.

The study notes that areas where little agriculture has existed will need to be cultivated, and international food markets “will require closer integration to respond to global warming,” Reuters reported. The study authors note that food production in southern regions will likely become more difficult while rising temperatures will make farming conditions in the north more favorable for a variety of crops.

“If you don’t carefully plan (where to spend resources), you will get adaptation wrong,” David Leclere, one of the study’s authors, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Europe’s food production is expected to increase with rising temperatures, but across Africa, imports will become even more important to the continent.

Climate scientists have also been warning against high levels of meat and dairy consumption, particularly in developing nations. Livestock production contributes about 15 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Plants, on the other hand, can help to replace carbon in soil.

“If climate change is managed correctly, food production could even rise 3 percent by 2050,” Reuters explained, “as a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a fertilizing effect on plants.”

Despite the mounting evidence of climate change’s impact on the planet, Congress just told a panel of nutritionists that it can’t make dietary recommendations based on a food’s impact on the climate.

We hate to say it; but there is far more to eco-eating than simply organic. Organic is wonderful and certainly always a step in the conscientious direction, but food is a complicated matter indeed. The food system is responsible for 1/3 of all greenhouse gas emissions, the US food system alone contributing 5% of all global emissions, which, as we all know, causes global warming (excuse us, global climate change).

We hate to say it; but there is far more to eco-eating than simply organic. Organic is wonderful and certainly always a step in the conscientious direction, but food is a complicated matter indeed. The food system is responsible for 1/3 of all greenhouse gas emissions, the US food system alone contributing 5% of all global emissions, which, as we all know, causes global warming (excuse us, global climate change).

Your foodprint – or carbon footprint drawn from eating habits – is one of the most profound ways to shift your lifestyle. If you need help transforming your plate, check out this cool Carbon Footprint Calculator. You drag what you eat into the pan and it calculates your foodprint, giving you suggestions for change.

Keep the following five things in mind in terms of energy-efficient eating, and you’ll be cutting down your environmental impact in no time:

1. Meat and dairy are the worst eco offenders! Livestock production causes 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases. The animals themselves emit methane into the atmosphere, 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Also, the energy inputs with raising livestock far exceed the output, but due to things like government subsidies and poor conditions for the animals, these businesses continue to thrive.

2. Eating foods that are out of season means they’ve been shipped from a climate far far away or grown in a hothouse which is incredibly energy intensive. Read up on the 8 Best Fall Green Vegetables.

3. The way you cook your food certainly contributes to its carbon footprint. First off, eating raw foods is aces, generally requiring the energy needed to use a knife. When you do cook, try to fill the oven as much as you can (baking everything at once), put lids on your pots and use low- to medium- level flame on your burners. Another way to look at it is that when you cook foods, you essentially cook out some of the nutrients. Something to definitely consider in striving to be a green eater is packing a nutritional punch with each eating selection, or the nutrient density of your dish.

4. Avoid eating foods that have been shipped via air, which basically means one very important thing that will drastically reduce your carbon impact: farmers markets baby!

5. You know how your mom made you eat everything on your plate before you were allowed dessert? She was onto something. Food is precious and should be treated as such. Make only what you can eat, and save what you don’t for later (Check out our 4 Tips for Safe and Eco-Friendly Food Storage). Wasting food is just a shame. That homeless man down the street will gladly (or grumpily) accept your doggie bag. Also, packaged and processed foods generate a ridiculous amount of waste.

The oil industry, whose image couldn’t be worse in the wake of the BP spill, was less than thrilled that Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was defeated.

“Massive and rapidly imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions would harm the American economy and hit every American in his or her wallet,” warned Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. “If EPA’s aggressive campaign to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is successful, it will add billions of dollars to the cost of doing business in the United States, raise the cost of energy and other products for American families, wipe out the jobs of millions of American workers and simply shift greenhouse gas emissions from the United States to other nations without any increase in environmental protection.”

“Quite the opposite, it is [the Murkowski] resolution that will hurt our economy by causing the American people to forfeit a third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are projected to come from last year's historic agreement between the Obama Administration, the states, and the nation’s automakers and autoworkers,” he said.

“Much of what the special interests, and Big Oil and their lobbyists, have been saying in favor of this resolution is steeped not in science, but in politics and mistruths,” Leahy added.

Rebecca Rasch, communications manager for the Environmental Defense Fund, got it right when she noted that the Murkowski resolution would have nullified “EPA’s finding of scientific fact that greenhouse gases cause harmful global warming—a finding that forms the legal basis for any further steps EPA can take to address carbon pollution.”

The oil industry, whose image couldn’t be worse in the wake of the BP spill, was less than thrilled that Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to handcuff the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was defeated.

“Massive and rapidly imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions would harm the American economy and hit every American in his or her wallet,” warned Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. “If EPA’s aggressive campaign to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is successful, it will add billions of dollars to the cost of doing business in the United States, raise the cost of energy and other products for American families, wipe out the jobs of millions of American workers and simply shift greenhouse gas emissions from the United States to other nations without any increase in environmental protection.”

“Quite the opposite, it is [the Murkowski] resolution that will hurt our economy by causing the American people to forfeit a third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are projected to come from last year’s historic agreement between the Obama Administration, the states, and the nation’s automakers and autoworkers,” he said.

“Much of what the special interests, and Big Oil and their lobbyists, have been saying in favor of this resolution is steeped not in science, but in politics and mistruths,” Leahy added.

Rebecca Rasch, communications manager for the Environmental Defense Fund, got it right when she noted that the Murkowski resolution would have nullified “EPA’s finding of scientific fact that greenhouse gases cause harmful global warming—a finding that forms the legal basis for any further steps EPA can take to address carbon pollution.”

A Republican legislator from Alaska, who happens to be female, wants to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The only surprise?

I’m not talking about Sarah Palin, who’s consistently two dogs short of a full sled.

From somewhere within the bowels of Bizarro World, Sen. Lisa Murkowski introduced a resolution Jan. 21 to tie the EPA’s hands.

“The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases,” she said, apparently splitting hairs over the specific particles in our crappy air.

OK, let’s see if we can connect the dots: Murkowski, ranking Republican member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, received $433,989 from the oil and gas industry between 2002 and 2010, as well as $473,563 from the electricity industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

FYI: Over the last 5 years, Inhofe has received $564,700 from the oil and gas industry, as well as $398,390 from electric utilities. His top 20 contributors over the last 5 years include Koch Industries (petroleum refining), Murray Energy, Devon Energy, OGE Energy, Anadarko Petroleum—and the far-from-green list goes on.

A Republican legislator from Alaska, who happens to be female, wants to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The only surprise?

I’m not talking about Sarah Palin, who’s consistently two dogs short of a full sled.

From somewhere within the bowels of Bizarro World, Sen. Lisa Murkowski introduced a resolution Jan. 21 to tie the EPA’s hands.

“The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases,” she said, apparently splitting hairs over the specific particles in our crappy air.

OK, let’s see if we can connect the dots: Murkowski, ranking Republican member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, received $433,989 from the oil and gas industry between 2002 and 2010, as well as $473,563 from the electricity industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

FYI: Over the last 5 years, Inhofe has received $564,700 from the oil and gas industry, as well as $398,390 from electric utilities. His top 20 contributors over the last 5 years include Koch Industries (petroleum refining), Murray Energy, Devon Energy, OGE Energy, Anadarko Petroleum—and the far-from-green list goes on.